You are being extremely charitable if you think the writer did not mean to imply that that is the case in the context of Gabon too. That’s why there an “also” in the sentence. Either way it is petty pedantry.
I guess maybe you’re right. I didn’t really notice the “also” the first time. Reading up on Gabon’s history, too, the “since the 90s” thing is obviously about Gabon.
Still, I’d say going from rigged elections to a military coup is a big loss of democracy, but it sounds like Gabon has been headed that way for a long time.
If elections were rigged, that would mean that there was no democracy in place to begin with. How is changing to any other system a loss in democracy even though there was none to begin with?
Elections are a system of democracy. If corruption can be rooted out, then that system is already ostensibly in place, whereas I believe the military leaders are planning to tear the whole government down and rebuild from scratch. Maybe they rebuild a democracy with better assurances of fair elections and it ends up a net gain of democracy, but for now it’s a loss.
I get your point now. But the rooting out of corruption part is a big if in realising the democratic potential of elections. When there are Western interests in play as is the case with many African countries, the corruption is crucial in keeping the subject open to western exploitation. As such any effort that would seem to curb corruption also opposes western interest and faces opposition because of that.
This is why there is a contagion of anti-French coups in Africa currently. It is not because they don’t know how to do democracy better but because it’s extremely difficult to overturn the ruling class through legal and electoral means.
Yeah, it’s a shitty situation for the Gabonese people. The junta somehow needs to give way to a stable, peaceful government, but that’s unlikely as long as there’s oil for “foreign interests” to liberate.
You are being extremely charitable if you think the writer did not mean to imply that that is the case in the context of Gabon too. That’s why there an “also” in the sentence. Either way it is petty pedantry.
I guess maybe you’re right. I didn’t really notice the “also” the first time. Reading up on Gabon’s history, too, the “since the 90s” thing is obviously about Gabon.
Still, I’d say going from rigged elections to a military coup is a big loss of democracy, but it sounds like Gabon has been headed that way for a long time.
If elections were rigged, that would mean that there was no democracy in place to begin with. How is changing to any other system a loss in democracy even though there was none to begin with?
Elections are a system of democracy. If corruption can be rooted out, then that system is already ostensibly in place, whereas I believe the military leaders are planning to tear the whole government down and rebuild from scratch. Maybe they rebuild a democracy with better assurances of fair elections and it ends up a net gain of democracy, but for now it’s a loss.
I get your point now. But the rooting out of corruption part is a big if in realising the democratic potential of elections. When there are Western interests in play as is the case with many African countries, the corruption is crucial in keeping the subject open to western exploitation. As such any effort that would seem to curb corruption also opposes western interest and faces opposition because of that.
This is why there is a contagion of anti-French coups in Africa currently. It is not because they don’t know how to do democracy better but because it’s extremely difficult to overturn the ruling class through legal and electoral means.
Yeah, it’s a shitty situation for the Gabonese people. The junta somehow needs to give way to a stable, peaceful government, but that’s unlikely as long as there’s oil for “foreign interests” to liberate.
Elections are part of a democratic system, but only if they are held democratically
If the election can be rigged, what’s there to keep from the system? The voting booths?